Architectures of domestication: on emplacing human‐animal relations in the North

Abstract

This article explores human-animal relationships in the North by calling for a fresh examination of the infrastructures and architectures which inscribe them. We draw attention to the self-limiting quality of Arctic architectures which are designed to emphasize mutual autonomy. This approach challenges models that would create a crisp, clear separation between domestication as constituting a form of domination or a type of mutualism. By describing several key infrastructures of domestication -of tethers, enclosures, and traps -we hope to draw attention to the silencing of these domestic inventories. Revisiting the metaphor of the domus, we focus on the lands where these relationships are elaborated, re-linking Arctic architectures to places of encounter. Drawing on in-depth fieldwork mainly from Northern North America and various sites in Northern Eurasia, we present an ethnographically informed account that stresses the nuanced way in which strategies of control are blended with those of care and comfort, creating unbounded homes that are good to live in.This article explores human-animal relationships by examining the architectures inscribing them. Challenging stark dichotomies wherein domestication is seen as necessarily dominating, or at heart mutualistic, we propose an ethnographically informed account focusing on strategies of control, but also on those of care and comfort, which are delineated by evocative objects and structures. By paying attention to the material architectures of domestication -of tethers, enclosures, and traps -we highlight the silencing of domestic inventories. Rather than assuming that a single bridle dug from a Neolithic excavation, or a fenced enclosure in the taiga, 'stand for' the dreary domination of human over animal, we are asking readers to take a second look to imagine these artefacts as pointing to an architecture of relationships.Our examples come almost exclusively from the North -Northern North America and Northern Eurasia -and this is for several reasons. Within the regions of the world where domestication has been interrogated, there has been a surprising overemphasis on places such as the Near East, China, or the temperate zones of the Americas as so-called 'centres of domestication' . The dominant narrative has been that domestication -as if it were a standard recipe -was achieved once in a particular place, and then spread to other parts of the world. This fairy tale of how physically distinct dogs, maize, or horses colonized the rest of the planet has been shown to be

Human–animal agency in reindeer management: Sámi herders’ perspectives on vegetation dynamics under climate change

“…We define this shared life between co‐participants (Ingold , Anderson et al. ) who carry out actions together as “human–animal agency.” This relationship is not of static character, but a compromise between the preferences of human and non‐human actors (Sara ). By their practices, reindeer herders engage culturally with the landscape, creating via lived experiences their own moral codes of social–ecological relationships (Davidson‐Hunt and Berkes ).…”

Herding Ecologies and Ongoing Plant Domestication Processes in the Americas

“…In the American continent, domestication centers traditionally refer to areas of Eastern North America, Mesoamerica, the Andes, and the Amazon ( Smith, 2006 ; Casas et al, 2007 ; Pearsall, 2008 ; Stahl, 2008 ; DeClerck et al, 2010 ; Piperno, 2011 ; Clement, 2014 ), even though there is also a wealth of knowledge about landscape, plant and animal domestication in the most northern regions by the Arctic, Northwest Coast, Prairie, Neutral or Huron cultures ( Berkes and Davidson-Hunt, 2006 ; Turner et al, 2013 ; Thornton et al, 2015 ; Anderson et al, 2017 ). From this work and the case studies we provide, we can observe that people manage landscapes co-habited and co-created by animals and plants interacting among them and with the rest of the denizens of their shared domus , however, small or ample (e.g., intensive vs. extensive farming), perpetual or ephemeral (e.g., sedentary vs .…”

“…Since prehistoric times, reindeer or caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) populations have shared the Arctic territories with different indigenous peoples, providing them with hunting, milking and transportation goods. Both wild and domestic engagements between humans and reindeer happen at particular points, not at random but in places with predictable characteristics according to people’s and animals’ knowledge of the land ( Baskin, 2003 ; Andrews et al, 2012 ; Anderson et al, 2014 , 2017 ).…”

“…These examples illustrate how humans, reindeer and plant communities interact in their environmental niches, both in hunting and pastoral ecologies. However, it would be interesting to deepen and refine the knowledge of the most northern pastoral niches of the continent by means of ethnobotanical surveys (for the Gwich’in people of Canada, for instance, but also for other reindeer herding ecologies of the circumpolar Arctic as well, see Anderson et al, 2017 ; Table 2 ). Possibly, among the diverse possibilities that human–reindeer–plant interactions can take, there are species in the flora reported by Anderson et al (2014) in Siberia, or those known for Canada (e.g., Uprety et al, 2012 ), that are distinctively managed by pastoralists.…”

Animais exóticos de origem europeia ou africana entre povos indígenas nas terras baixas da América do Sul Notas para pesquisas futuras

“…É imperativo -dada a pouca clareza que tem acompanhado o uso de certas noções -retomar um conjunto de refl exões que vêm sendo realizadas por autores americanistas (Erikson 1987;Fausto 1999;Descola 2002;Cormier 2003;Garcia 2011, entre outros) debruçados sobre as relações de domesticidade (especialmente no tocante à familiarização), de companhia ou vida em comum, que conectam coletivos humanos e distintos seres não humanos -com especial ênfase nos seres que denominamos animais -nas terras baixas da América do Sul, de modo a interrogar a natureza dessas relações, assim como a repensar as próprias noções de domesticidade e de domesticação. Estes trabalhos devem ser somados -mas a tarefa ainda está por ser feita -aos esforços dispendidos numa revisão teórica geral do conceito de (e da história da) domesticação de animais por autores de distintos campos acadêmicos: antropologia, fi losofi a, história, biologia, ecologia (Haraway 2008;Fijn 2011;Anderson et al 2017;Swanson, Lien e Ween 2018). Trata-se, afi nal, de procurar, sobretudo em trabalhos etnográfi cos, informações a respeito das relações de domesticidade nas sociedades nativas do continente -relações que, diga-se de passagem, acreditava-se ausentes aqui em tempos pré-colombianos (Descola 2002), ainda que haja evidências da presença de certas espécies domesticadas, ou, ao menos, manejadas ou semi-domesticadas (atenção deve ser dada a estes diferentes conceitos), como o pato (Sick 1984: 85) e as abelhas meliponíneas nativas (Camargo e Posey 1990) em aldeias indígenas sul-americanas.…”